legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re E..M. CA1/4
E.M. (Minor) appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered after the juvenile court sustained allegations that, when Minor was between the ages of 12 and 15, he committed three sex offenses against two daughters of his father’s girlfriend, R.S. and K.M. The court placed Minor on probation, in the custody of his parents, under various terms and conditions.
On appeal, Minor contends reversal is required because (1) the juvenile court failed to meet its obligations under the deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) statutory scheme described in section 790 et seq.; (2) the juvenile court prejudicially erred in excluding Minor’s father from the courtroom when the sisters testified during his jurisdictional hearing; and (3) the juvenile court’s order sustaining the allegations of the petition lacked adequate evidentiary support. Minor also contends the juvenile court erred in imposing certain probation conditions.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale